58 MPG by 2032

[Torvy]

The problem is that the decline in coal power production is not efficient or effective. Coal is still a very efficient store of power. The only reason coal production has declined is due to regulatory overreach. In contrast, renewable power is only cost effective because it is being propped up by the government. Maybe someday there will be improvements, but there are major problems with these sources that will never make them more than a supplemental source of power. The sun isn't going to shine, nor the wind blow, 24/7.

Nuclear power has come a long way technogically, but fear mongering has kept us from realizing its potential. We are simply putting the proverbial cart before the horse. If environmentalists and regulatory bodies were truly serious, they would be fasttracking nuclear production by lowering the obstructions to new construction and shifting any government assistance toward nuclear. Only AFTER the power production is sufficient should any government consider pushing the use of more and more electric devices. Personally, I'd rather the free market decide. Overall, those who are the most vocal about environmental issues tend to focus on relatively minor contributors and ignore the biggest. The hypocrisy is not helping their cause.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

34% is still natural gas. A fossil fuel. 20% is nuclear. Renewables are a tiny fraction of energy production.

I'm all for nuclear. I am. But are the leftists?

 

[WinterDeere]

The problem is that the decline in coal power production is not efficient or effective. Coal is still a very efficient store of power. The only reason coal production has declined is due to regulatory overreach.

I think there's some truth to this, but on the flip side, we have to look at the true costs associated with coal. There are known and provable health impacts, both on those mining and processing coal, as well as on the general public. Those costs should be included when doing any true cost comparison between coal and other fuel sources, in both directions.

Nuclear power has come a long way technogically, but fear mongering has kept us from realizing its potential. We are simply putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

It's really a historic problem. In a nutshell, it was our Navy who saw the first really good opportunities for deploying nuclear power, just as our government was setting up their first nuclear regulatory commission. So, the first plans submitted and approved for manufacture and use in the USA were plant types that really favored a Naval usage profile. Unfortunately, these plant types are and were never the safest type of system conceptualized for stationary land-based plants, but as the cost of bringing some of these other concepts to maturity and eventual approval was completely beyond any private entity or utility, the Navy's plant types ended up deployed in places like Pennsylvania and Illinois. Because the rest of the world was initially reliant on our nuclear technology and plant manufacture, these plants also ended up all over the world.

There are many other plant concepts, some of which have received continuous R&D over the last 70 years, and a few of which have been built or are currently being built in other countries. Most of these, unlike our own plants, are based on "passive fail safe" concepts.

 

[WinterDeere]

34% is still natural gas. A fossil fuel. 20% is nuclear. Renewables are a tiny fraction of energy production.

Yep, natural gas is going to remain dominant for years to come, at least in the USA. It's too cheap to ignore, but thankfully it's also much cleaner than coal.

Renewables used to be a tiny fraction, but perhaps you haven't seen the latest? They are now at 24%, and are our second-largest energy source, above both coal and nuclear. Current projects under construction or approval guarantees they will pass 30% in 2025, and the forecast is for continued growth beyond that. It will be a very long time before they catch natural gas, but it's clear coal is in its last throws of death.

I'm a free market guy, as well. I'm not a huge fan of regulation, but I do watch the news and read the DOE site. I also have family who have spent their careers in the management side of the utility industry, so I get to hear from them about recent trends at every holiday gathering. It doesn't take a psychic to see wind is on the rise, in a huge way, and utility-scale solar is on its heels. Residential-scale solar is a loser (IMO), that's being propped up by tax dollars, but utility-scale solar has some promise.

 

[Deleted member 371759]

I think there's some truth to this, but on the flip side, we have to look at the true costs associated with coal. There are known and provable health impacts, both on those mining and processing coal, as well as on the general public. Those costs should be included when doing any true cost comparison between coal and other fuel sources, in both directions.

.

The true cost of coal is what lifted a country out of poverty, fed hundreds of millions diets that did not consist of mud cookies, no more freezing to death or sweltering in the summers. Coal lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and starvation and created the richest middle class the world has ever seen.

 

[WinterDeere]

The true cost of coal is what lifted a country out of poverty, fed hundreds of millions diets that did not consist of mud cookies, no more freezing to death or sweltering in the summers. Coal lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and starvation and created the richest middle class the world has ever seen.

Definitely. I wasn't implying otherwise. But that's history, and we're talking about today/future.

Would you base the merit of some of today's corrupt labor unions on the legitimately good work they did 100 years ago? I wouldn't.

 

[Deleted member 371759]

Definitely. I wasn't implying otherwise. But that's history, and we're talking about today/future.

Would you base the merit of some of today's corrupt labor unions on the legitimately good work they did 100 years ago? I wouldn't.

Just because something is history does not make it in need of immediate dismantling. I agree advancement is a great thing, but you can't destroy what works until the technology is in place. If you care about poor people I mean really care about them then you will understand the one way to hurt them in the absolute worst and devastating way is to remove access to low cost energy.

 

[WinterDeere]

I can understand your point, and it's a good one. But I'm a hardcore pre-MAGA Republican... so caring for the poor by maintaining anything not benefitting our long-term needs is probably not my strong suit. I'd rather see any such effort go toward creating opportunities for the poor to get better jobs and earn more, than worry about keeping an obsolete tech alive for their sole benefit.

I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, it's just a difference in philosophy.

 

[fatjay]

Nuclear is the future. France is something like 80-90% nuclear. China and india are building massive nuclear plants. The US all but over-regulated nuclear out of existence. We need to bring it back.

 

[Deleted member 371759]

I can understand your point, and it's a good one. But I'm a hardcore pre-MAGA Republican... so caring for the poor by maintaining anything not benefitting our long-term needs is probably not my strong suit. I'd rather see any such effort go toward creating opportunities for the poor to get better jobs and earn more, than worry about keeping an obsolete tech alive for their sole benefit.

I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, it's just a difference in philosophy.

At least you're honest. I dont have a ton of skin in the game so Ill sit back here in the hills and watch.

 

[Williy]

The sad thing about congress sticking their fingers into anything
is like having a bad case of hemorrhiods of which we can do very
nicely without!!! Its a very sad FACT!!!!!!

They say that a certain year they want all cars/trucks running on
electricity and yet are there any new power plants being built
that are not run on coal, gas etc?????
At the way things are going there will be a lot of electric cars/trucks
sitting by the side of the road!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also with the cheap electric
cars supposely $5k for a new one probably a lot of people with go
for the cheap electric car/truck versus the gas/diesel ones and the
sad part is a lot of power stations will malfunction because of the
extremly heavy for power. Just my opinion

willy

 

[WinterDeere]

They say that a certain year they want all cars/trucks running on
electricity and yet are there any new power plants being built
that are not run on coal, gas etc?????

Yes, "they" are! Rather than post the same graphic a third time, please see posts #245 or #104 in this thread. Since 2010, in the USA alone, electricity production from renewables has more than doubled, and gas has nearly doubled. Coal is down 2.5x. Electric production from renewables passed coal and nukes in 2022, making renewables (mostly wind) our second largest source of electricity, with cheap natural gas still taking the lead. Gas will remain our primary source for some time to come, it's lead is so large, but coal is dying fast. Nukes are a political and financial challenge, not a technical challenge, so that could go either way.

Also, note that the primary model is for overnight charging at home, taking advantage of unused capacity during overnight off-peak hours. This will be incentivized by off-peak billing rates, making it cheaper to program your car to charge at night.

This solves a related problem, in that nukes have long time constants, on the order of days rather than hours. Because our historic off-peak demand is so low relative to our peak demand, the nukes have been set up to only carry a fraction of the off-peak demand. There's simply no way to turn them up during the day, and down overnight. But if we increase overnight demand with 300 million EV's plugged in at home and charging overnight, we can do a better job of leveling off on- vs off-peak demand. This will allow us to keep those nukes throttled up to take a larger fraction of our daily load, further diminishing reliance on the plants currently supplying our peak demand (coal, gas).

It's amusing how similar some of the posts on this forum are to what you'll read in newspapers of 115 years ago, people complaining about automobiles, and saying they'll never replace the horse.

 

[WinterDeere]

One thing really bothering me here is that, while so many are focused on reducing emissions by imposing standards on the vehicles we drive, there is nothing being done to solve much simpler problems.

Nearly every day, I will sit at a traffic light where traffic is backed up at a red light, and the "green" direction has no traffic for several minutes. All this wasted time for all of these people, in addition to all of those cars just belching exhaust while they sit and idle. Then, just as a batch of cars is finally approaching their green light, the stupid thing switches and makes them stop and wait while we go. It is so infinitely simple, even using 40 year old technology, to time these lights for approaching traffic, so that almost no one should ever have to sit at a red light while the other direction has no traffic. This alone would go a long way toward reducing emissions, as that whole batch of cars that had to stop, now wastes an enormous amount of fuel getting back up to speed... only to stop at the next light.

 

[NoTrespassing]

I got 50.5 mpg on my 35 mile drive home from work yesterday in my 2018 Mazda 3 hypermiling through the country. That's about $2.50 to go 35 miles.

 

[NoTrespassing]

Nuclear is the future. France is something like 80-90% nuclear. China and india are building massive nuclear plants. The US all but over-regulated nuclear out of existence. We need to bring it back.

Georgia Power just brought one online 4 weeks ago.

MSN

 

[motormike]

The government wants to cut down on emission gas then why don't the figure out how to make traffic keep flowing. I sat in bumper to bumper traffic and burned 100 miles worth of extra fuel on my trip. I figure every state has a traffic problem. Making vehicles get 50 MPG won't fix emission issues when you are driving 5 MPH.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

I can get 10-15% better mileage by slowing down 5mph. Why don't they try that?

 

[motormike]

I can get 10-15% better mileage by slowing down 5mph. Why don't they try that?

Because it's 0-5 for miles. Bumper to bumper. My jeep gets its best gas mileage running at 70, 2200RPM.

 

[Williy]

No matter what speed I drive I can only get 24 because of the
hills here down hill to town and up hill home

willy

 

[buckeyefarmer]

And since EVs get 0 MpG, they will be outlawed.